I tried to search for the script online, but could not find it. I seem to remember Colonel Tanner saying that the Soviet forces came up through Mexico to invade the Great Plains. They got stopped at the Rockies and the Mississippi. I remember that the Soviet were at least as far north as Kansas.

The nuke strikes do not seem right either. I know there were strikes in the Dakotas (silos).

I tried to search for the script online, but could not find it. I seem to remember Colonel Tanner saying that the Soviet forces came up through Mexico to invade the Great Plains. They got stopped at the Rockies and the Mississippi. I remember that the Soviet were at least as far north as Kansas.

The nuke strikes do not seem right either. I know there were strikes in the Dakotas (silos).

IIRC, the southern invasion came from Nicaragua. A theory set for by Ronald Reagan as to why we had to meddle in that country's politics to keep soviet tanks that are only hours from US soil. (yes it only takes a few hours to drive a tank through Mexico and I guess the Mexican would be too lazy to stop them)

I have to disagree. As war films go I'd give it 8/10, and as far as depictions of guerilla warfare are concerned, I'd call it one of the few on the subject, and the only one I know of offhand that approaches a realistic depiction. The strategic improbabilities are there, but are certainly no less probable than a bicycle invasion of Malaya.

"You think you're tough for eating beans every day? There's half a million scarecrows in Denver who'd give anything for one mouthful of what you got. They've been under siege for about three months. They live on rats and sawdust bread and sometimes... on each other. At night, the pyres for the dead light up the sky. It's medieval."

I have to disagree. As war films go I'd give it 8/10, and as far as depictions of guerilla warfare are concerned, I'd call it one of the few on the subject, and the only one I know of offhand that approaches a realistic depiction. The strategic improbabilities are there, but are certainly no less probable than a bicycle invasion of Malaya.[/I]

I guess I'll have to disagree with that, then. The strategic improbabilities I'd buy - it's a movie - but the individual tactics aren't what I'd call realistic. Back when I wore green, we'd rent it to poke fun at the poor tactics, weapons handling etc. - on both sides, incidentally. Most of the the scene-by-scene details have been mercifully forgotten, but I do recall that basic stuff (don't skyline yourself, you idiot!) was pretty bad. Of course, a realistic competent guerilla ambush is hard to turn into a gripping movie scene.

I do give the movie props for conveying a suitably grim mood. War is not a thrill ride for these kids. And the technical details - weapons, vehicles, even the almost-Hinds - are surprisingly good.

I do give the movie props for conveying a suitably grim mood. War is not a thrill ride for these kids. And the technical details - weapons, vehicles, even the almost-Hinds - are surprisingly good.

I think it was RedDawn , but the FBI actually stopped a transport truck carrying the T-72 cause it looked like the real thing. This was back when Soldier of Fortune was offering a million bucks for a real life Mi-24 hind, so I can imagine the feds thinking.

Aerospatiale Alouettes, mocked up to look like Hinds, actually. I used to work for Eurocopter, and one of the guys in a different department had a pretty cool drawing/artist's rendering of the mockups, and had worked with the film people to help mock them up. Another guy had a little plastic concept model or something.

I know it's pretty much logistically impossible, but if you were going to conquer the United States militarily, how would you go about it? The Red Dawn scenario is to use a giant pincer movement to cut the country in half. Seeing as that takes them through some of the most rugged geography on the continent, is that a good idea?